The assorted musings of Hugo Schwyzer: a progressive Anabaptist/Episcopalian Democrat (but with a sense of humor), a community college history and gender studies professor, animal rights activist, ENFP Gemini, avid marathoner, aspiring ultra-runner, die-hard political junkie, and (still) the proud father of the most amazing chinchilla on God's green earth.

November 15, 2006

A radio interview, chin update, and a confession of love for Bobby Knight

Yesterday at lunch time, I trundled over to the KPCC radio studio here on campus to do an interview with NPR. They're doing a story on Ratemyprofessors, and they got my name from this InsideHigherEd article. The piece will eventually air on either Morning Edition or All Things Considered, but probably not for a week or two. If I get more details on when it'll be on, I'll post them. I really, really like radio. I make no secret of my own desire to have a part-time gig as a talk-show host.

Our six chinchillas are well and happy. I've opened up a new "Flickr" account, and now must simply edit and upload the many photos we've taken of Chihiro, Ninotchka, Gabriella, Joonko, Dudley, and Racheli. They have captured the hearts of the team of workmen who are redoing our air-conditioning system at home. Tony, the owner of the company installing the new ducts and compressor/condenser thing, said "I'm amazed that people are willing to spend so much for these little guys." He's considering a chinchilla for his kids; we figure that an AC repair guy is the right man to adopt one. He'll know how to keep these intensely heat-sensitive animals nice and cool.

And I have an odd confession to make: though it may seem strange for a liberal evangelical metrosexual college gender studies professor to say so, I am now and have been for decades a huge Bobby Knight fan. The former Indiana and current Texas Tech coach is in the news again; once again, he is accused of "crossing the line" with one of his players. (He apparently struck the boy gently under the chin to reprimand him.) For some thirty years, Knight has made himself famous for many things: his remarkable coaching and motivational skills, his famous flashes of anger, his willingness to cross verbal and physical boundaries with his players -- boundaries that no other modern coach would dare cross. He is feared and hated by many, loved by others. His epic tirades are balanced by a reputation for extraordinary, quiet kindnesses. Few other figures in sports have had as many passionate admirers and detractors debating his behavior, his meaning, his role, and his legacy for so long.

I can't say for sure, but I suspect that Knight wouldn't think much of the likes of me. Men who teach critical analyses of gender in contemporary American life probably don't rate high on his scale. And as someone who is committed to envisioning, embodying, and bringing about a gentler, kinder, more emotionally attuned masculine ideal, I ought to be repulsed by Bobby Knight. He ought to represent everything I dislike and struggle against. His overbearing swagger, his overgrown adolescent refusal to play by the rules, his penchant for abusive tirades (and the occasional slap or punch); this man is the very sort of rage-aholic we progressive feminists ought to find repulsive and horrifying. And yet Knight is one of a handful of coaches whom I, a devoted fan of almost every non-motorized sport, truly admire. (You haven't heard of most of the rest of them: Vivian Stringer, Anson Dorrance, Joe Ehrmann, John McDonnell, Sue Enquist.)

What I like about Knight is not his inchoate rage. What I like about him is something I don't know that everyone else sees. When I watch him on the court (and I always try and watch when his teams are playing), I see what I aspire to be: a master teacher. For me, Knight's greatness lies in his absolute, unswerving, nearly mad commitment to the personal, intellectual, and physical growth of his student-athletes. When I watch him coach, I see a man for whom winning isn't nearly as important as transformation; his great obsession is to be the catalyst for his players to grow. His famous temper seems primarily directed less towards those who challenge him and more towards those who show some reluctance to grow, change, relentlessly push themselves to become better and better still.

I'm regularly accused on this blog of setting too high a standard, particularly for men. Whether the issue is pornography, or relationships with younger women, or making and keeping commitments, or accepting responsibility for developing an emotional vocabulary, I push men hard. I push them harder than I push women not because I think women are weak, but because I am a man who knows first-hand that transformation is possible. There are plenty of folks out there pushing women to change themselves (not always in healthy ways); there are fewer voices pushing men as hard. I don't rage like Knight does, and of course, I would never, ever, ever put anything other than an affectionate hand on a student or youth group kid. But Coach Knight inspires me more than do any of his peers because I sense in him a kindred spirit; I see in him a man committed to never surrendering to the notion that we cannot become all that our truest selves long to be.

Even now, in the twilight of his career, he is barking and raging against laziness, against incompetence, and above all, against the notion that we cannot radically transform ourselves. Coach wants to build great teams of unselfish, committed young men. In a very different and significant way, that's what I want to do too.

"intellectual development" of his students? Really? Is he known for working to create a culture of student-athletics with an emphasis on the former at IU and TT? Maybe memory isn't serving me well, but I seem to remember a great deal of criticism of him at IU for doing exactly the opposite of that.

Speaking as a sports fan, I don't imagine I'll ever be able to root for a coach who says "rape is inevitable, women should just relax and let it happen" to a reporter, for public consumption. The stated view is appalling enough, the fact that he serves as a mentor for young college men makes it all the worse. I certainly admire things about Knight, his talent and passion, and I'll even buy that cares deeply for those under his instruction beyond their contributions on the basketball court, his contempt for so much of the rest of humanity renders him ineligible for generalized admiration in my book.

(the "chin-tapping incident" strikes me as much ado about absolutely nothing, and I suspect it would have gone unnoticed had the coach not been Bobby Knight)

Your listing of Dorrance strikes me as curious given your recent comment that "As older men, our obligation to be safe, loving, and utterly non-sexual in our relationships with younger women doesn't change when or if a young woman is attracted to us."

From the UNC AD:
"While Coach Dorrance strongly denies that he has ever discussed
an individual team member’s sexual activity in a one-on-one
discussion, Coach Dorrance has acknowledged that he participated
in group discussions of a jesting or teasing nature with soccer team members. This is altogether inappropriate."

From one Appeals Court Judge in an appeal of a sexual harrassment suit brought by one of his former players:

"Dorrance was not simply one man outnumbered by twenty-six women. He was a forty-five year-old man probing into the sexual activities of young women, some of whom, like Jennings, were as young as seventeen. As the coach, he controlled everything: team membership, scholarship eligibility, playing position, and playing time. He was in fact more than a regular college coach; he was and still is the most successful women’s soccer coach in U.S. history and a former national team coach.

As such, he exercised tremendous power over his players’ soccer careers at UNC and beyond. The players were acutely aware of Dorrance’s power and feared his punishment should they complain. Even though some players felt discomfort, humiliation, or disgust because of Dorrance’s conduct, they were afraid to object. As Jennings put it, "[H]ow do you say anything [to stop him]." J.A. 1290. "If you are submissive, you are fine," J.A.1227, but if you are not, "[y]our career goes — you . . . lose your playing time. You are stuck between a rock and a hard place." J.A. 1290. According to Keller, Dorrance’s affectionate touching and
questioning about sex "made [her] skin crawl" and made her "fe[el]
dirty," J.A. 1145, yet she "didn’t want to tick him off to a point . . .
where he would take it out on [her] by not playing [her]." J.A. 1120.
Keller thus "felt the pressure" to give in to some degree and answer
some of Dorrance’s vulgar questions. J.A. 1120"

Okay, I withdraw Anson Dorrance as a role model. No other man has done as much for women's soccer in this country; his success at North Carolina has been remarkable (though parity is rapidly taking its toll on his number of championships). I had read a few rumors about AD, but accept that he does not deserve to be on the short list of my coaching heroes.

I had a coach who I very much admired in high school who attended a coaching clinic run by Knight. It was a very big deal for him, and he left at lunchtime because he found the entire thing so offensive. He also said that all of the women in attendance left by 10:00 am because Knight started the presentation by talking about how women didn't know shit about sports and used profanity and vulgarities about women until they all left. You're not a master teacher when you can't pass on your skills to other coaches because they find the rest of what you have to say so repugnant. He might have considerable success coaching basketball, but that's a pretty limited accomplishment in my mind.

It's not other people that you should be trying to push... only yourself. Influence yourself, and let others do the same. I can't think of a worse role model than Bobby Knight... abusive, egotistical, and it appears, misogynist to boot. Nice call.

Western culture has always "pushed" men to perform, to sacrifice at the expense of themselves, for benefits to women, and to be responsible even for things they aren't personally involved in 24/7.

I would love to see how women would do with the same pressure, and the heavy stigma as the result of not conforming with it. It's always been my belief they are given more choices, while men have been dumped with more responsibilities. Just look around you, not merely in textbooks. It's another double standard which is hiding in plain sight.

I know someone will try to protest my assertion, but I don't care (obviously)---since I won't indulge in a flawewar to eschew a thread drift, I'll cut this post short.

I was nervous to read this. I don't want there to be a defense for a man who represents to me the embodiment of raging, uncontrolled, masculinity (whether or not he actually is). I was content just being disgusted by him and hoping I would never meet him.

But you defended his behavior, or at least tried reveal that he has a soul, and I appreciate that. It makes us all better individuals if we can neutralize (or at least realize) our own hateful prejudices (especially if we claim to be the ones without prejudices). I'll try to judge Knight less.